The reported event could not be confirmed since the poly was not returned and no assessment could be made on the ct imaging provided.Upon further investigation of the ct scans by healthcare professionals the following was observed, "there is clear radiolucence around the distal tibial component, and there are cavities around the implant.As the surgeon assumes, that the tibial component is in place and intact and the tip of the implant does not show signs of loosening, i assume, that these findings were already present at the time of the insertion of the implant.Therefore i would assess these as not being loosened.And there is no clear sign of migration.The pe is not visible directly in the ct scan, however, the surgeon assumes that there might be some damage (wear) within the pe.Possible, but cannot be confirmed with the imaging only.The talar component is positioned in direct contact to large cavities, which are likely to impair the foundation of the implant.This can be assessed as loosening and the widened distance between the tibia and the talus could be used as a proof for the migration of the component.The talar component is loosened and has migrated." based on investigation, the root cause was attributed to a patient factors related issue.Regarding the allegation of a worn poly, no conclusion can be drawn based on the information provided.A review of the device history was not possible because the lot number was not communicated.No corrective actions are required at this time.A review of the labeling was not possible because the catalog number and lot number were not communicated.Indications of material, manufacturing, or design related problems were unable to be identified as the catalog number and lot number were not communicated.If the device is returned or if any additional information is provided, the investigation will be reassessed.
|